40 comments

So Tom White wants to freeze Congressional Pay? I suppose if you make as much as they do he wouldn't mind. Not to mention he is a MILLIONAIRE!!!!!

Great logic, hire me and I will support a pay freeze at 6 figures while I collect hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Just like a liberal to think the common man/woman is going to buy that load.

Tom thinks he knows whats best for the little people. Maybe that's why he has such an inferiority complex. His condition is acted out in his antics of violence, and bullying. His dominating, Supreme Court, father just didn't nurture young Tommy.

You think the American People are buying into it. Do you think all the retired military in Bellevue, with deep and rich world wide experience, are buying it?

Anyone would be better than sending another RepubliCant back to DC. Although since repubs only have to vote NO on everything I guess Terry could do that. Heck as a repub, he may even be smart enough to spell the word No…..well maybe.

First of all, Congressional pay is already frozen-Lee Terry voted to freeze it for this year, last year, the year before that, how many years in a row did the OWH article say that Congressman Terry has voted to freeze Congressional pay?

Second, most of the lawsuit money that Tom White has won in the last 10 years haas been paid for by the taxpayers of Douglas County and the City of Omaha. Go ahead an look it up. If you have a friend that works at a law office, they can do it for you on their legal cite search engine.

THIRD, are Dems on this blog belittling the public school education of Lee Terry that led him to be accepted at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and then Creighton Law School? Shame on you for belittling those that wish to be part of what makes Nebraska great!

I suppose if you compare resume to resume, that they don't match up. Lee never got to play around in Europe during his college years-because he was working to pay his tuition. And he never asked for the people's support to elected office knowing full well, he didn't intend to do anything but get people to recognize his name.

On that last one, shame on Tom White for having no sincerity to the people of Benson and North Omaha that he was supposed to represent in the Legislature. But, I bet you an ice cream cone that his neighbors in Memorial Park knew what he planned for the last 4 years. Maybe that's why he did so much work on his home in Memorial Park, he wanted to make sure to get top dollar on the market?

How boring. I am waiting for the White commercial describing Mr Terry's getting plastered with that comely lobbyist at that D C club.I like Keira Knightly for the lobbyist part and Jon Heder for the role of Mr. Terry.However Mr White told me they were not touching this, but I wonder why not? Does White want to win or be Mr Nice Guy?

Perfect Lee Terry ad- Picture of President Obama fades into picture of Harry Reid then fades into a picture of Nancy Pelosi then fades into picture of Ben Nelson then fade into picture of Tom White. Text is "What do all these people have in common?". "They all are democrats and they want to raise you taxes starting January first." Text on screen, "Tom White Democrat A Vote for Higher Taxes." End of White campaign.

The biggest tax cut in history was last year. Courtesy of Obama and the democrats. Look it up if you don't believe it. Oh it was just for the middle class. Not rich people like the one Bush did. I bet everyone on this blog got it. Unless your rich. Be honest now.

Tax Cut? WTF, THEY LENT PEOPLE THEIR OWN FRIGGIN' MONEY AND THEN TOOK IT OUT OF THEIR TAX REFUNDS!!!!!

A tax cut is when you let workers keep more of their hard earned dollars and quit creating programs to help them, that THEY have to pay for, haven't asked for, and MOST times, aren't eligible for while they are employed and paying for them

BTW, Tom White gave Theresa Whitehead a bunch of cash, too. It's so weird that he won't tell anyone what party he is in, yet he supports everything the Democrats do and nothing that the Conservatives try to stop.

Really, you should probably not bring up property values of Tom White's home when Lee Terry lives in a home valued at $327,000. It's like calling White a trial lawyer while ignoring that, were he not in Congress, that's exactly what Lee Terry is. It makes me think you don't really know anything about your candidate.

Street Sweeper: I can't account for Tom White's advertising positions but I do take exception to the seeming syllogism you created on Wednesday, September 22nd. I thought it looked peculiar when I first viewed it, but I was otherwise preoccupied and did not make a comment then. However, now you refer your readers to that same seeming syllogism in your post here, as though it's validity has been established. You wrote on the 22nd:

Saving the financial system was CRITICAL.

(The TARP vote) was (critical)

(The TARP vote) did (save the financial system).

The first premise contains the antecedent (financial system) and the consequent (critical). The second premise contains the antecedent (TARP vote) and the consequent (critical). The conclusion does not follow from these two premises.

If you intended to construct a standard logical syllogism, your second premise needed to contain as the antecedent, the consequent of the first premise. Thus, the second premise should have stated: It was (critical) to approve the TARP vote. And thus, your conclusion would have validly been: Saving the financial system necessitated the TARP vote.

While this formulation would have been valid, it might not have been true. Many of us believe that TARP was not necessary to save the financial system.

We know that Lee Terry voted for TARP (corporate welfare) but then subsequently refused to vote for stimulus spending (people welfare). I think the point which White has been trying to make, –> that Terry is too close to Wall Street and too distant from Main Street, might very well be TRUE!

P.S. If y'all had a Libertarian candidate running in the 2nd Congressional District up there, you would not have to vote for the lesser of two evils…

So what am I thinking after watching the 2nd District campaign commercials? Neither of these candidates would know an issue if it bit them on the nose. I'll be looking for the "None of the above" option on my ballot. The Democrats want to use all my money to make the government bigger because if the government is just big enough, a miracle will occur and the economy will be healed. The Republicans want to ignore basic cash flow and math to give large corporations more tax cuts, because if the corporations can just make enough money, a miracle will occur and the economy will be healed. A plague on both your houses.

Who gives a damn what Tom White's or Lee Terry's or anyone else's property is worth? You buy a house you and your family like, and hopefully you can move into a bigger or better one or whatever you want.

But unless it's an issue, who cares what they own? White hasn't claimed anything about his home or said he should be paying less on it, so let's just drop that.

There are a hundred other issues to choose from, so please do so (while attempting to stay on topic).

Tex, describing TARP as corp welfare and "stimulus" as people welfare is false and misleading.

The justification for TARP was that credit markets would dry up without it and banks wouldn't be able to loan money to PEOPLE. The idea was for the government to use TARP to buy worthless assets that banks held following foreclosures thereby enabling banks to lend money to CONSUMERS. If people can't get loans, they don't build new houses. If they don't build houses, construction workers lose their jobs, etc..

You call that corporate welfare compared to Cash for Clunkers that put money directly into the pockets of car dealers? (In case you didn't know, the money went directly into the pockets of the dealers and didn't rest a single moment in the hands of any consumers.)

lets say you are right about the intention of TARP. Well, depsite getting bailed out, the banks stopped lending, credit dried up, and the economy continued to falter. What did the banks do with the money? they bonused themselves with it.

As for cash for clunkers – hmmm… the money wnet to consumers in the form of new, more efficient vehicles. That helped them, helped the dealers keep their dealerships open and people working, helped the auto industry which was on the verge of collapse and the jobs that go with it.If you apply the measure of success to TARP that you applied to CfC, you'd see the inherent double standard you've presented.

CfC, dollar for dollar, did more for regular people than TARP – tarp $ went int othe pockets of the super rich who then put it in their retirement and savings accounts. CfC put cars on the road for people who spend their money and fuel the economy.

BTW – anyone see Lee Terry defending the guy who shot two Omaha police officers yesterday? I guess first responders come first only on the context of suing them politically, not when they are shot at by your friends.

Even the regulators have told people that they made the banks balance their loan to reserves before beginning to lend again. So, TARP stopped the fall over the cliff and the government regulators have kept everything suspended in time.

What is certain, is the indecision of those in control of the agenda on Capitol Hill, is keeping all investment frozen.

As for Lee Terry defending the shooter? I missed that. I only saw the comment about him being surprised that someone he knew to be easy going would do what he very obviously did.

Find me someone that doesn't think this is a shocking turn of events and a very sad tragedy..

Anonymous at 8:47 — I stand by my descriptions. TARP was not necessary for solvency. Ordinary bankruptcy procedures could have accommodated the the demise of financial institutions now classed "too big to fail." TARP was corporate welfare at it's worst! Usually we only have to put up with unjust, inequitable tax "incentives" for business to, well, do business…

Shoe Salesman is right to denigrate the TARP monies paid out in bonuses to the very corporate leaders who caused the institutional failures. The little bank in our nearby rural town has been in business more than a century and a half. It declined TARP and had no difficulty weathering the recession since Oct. '08. I expect similar management of Wall Street!

On the other hand I agree that Cash for Clunkers was a bad idea. When I noted Lee Terry's refusal of stimulus spending, I was referring to the ARRA, which, everyone reading this blog is aware I'm sure, has been your Republican/Conservative lifeline to public education in Nebraska during the current biennium. I understand Cash for Clunkers to be a cover for another bad idea issuing from our Congress: the public purchase (60%) of General Motors.

The government(s) should never be in the business of bail-outs, nor the picking of winners and losers. But when the government(s) do act badly, I would prefer they do so in the interest of those among us who are the least able and who have the least, NOT the reverse. We know by Lee Terry's votes regarding TARP and ARRA, that he will protect (the richest) corporate interests over people interests. I think Tom White would do the same, if he could get elected. It saddens me when confronting an idea of acceptance, even expectancy, such as your's when debating the proper role of government(s) vs. inappropriate government action. Don't you care at all about EQUITY?